Announced today the Barons will cease operations at the end of the season.

I'm also hearing plans are ramping up to redevelop this block. I doutbt the two things are completely unrelated.

Pete, you tease. What are you hearing? :)

They need to tear down the entire thing along with the underground parking and redevelop it into four blocks with the streetgrid being pedestrian access only. If there is a hotel, the valet could be on one of the other sides of building. This would help promote walkability, retail access and interaction.

Announced today the Barons will cease operations at the end of the season.

I'm also hearing plans are ramping up to redevelop this block. I doutbt the two things are completely unrelated.

:(

This is scary.

This is a property worthy of $1.5 to $2B of investment, but I don't think OKC has those kind of resources yet.

They need to tear down the entire thing along with the underground parking and redevelop it into four blocks with the streetgrid being pedestrian access only. If there is a hotel, the valet could be on one of the other sides of building. This would help promote walkability, retail access and interaction.

As you may recall from the recent study the City commissioned, this is exactly what the consultants recommended.



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/pop2.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/pop5.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/pop8.jpg

Perfect spot for Continental.

The could buy the Renaissance Hotel like Devon did with the Colcord and connect the hotel, current and future buildings very easily.

:(

This is scary.

This is a property worthy of $1.5 to $2B of investment, but I don't think OKC has those kind of resources yet.

Maybe we will in five years? If all the stuff gets built to plan on the Preftakes block, SG and SGS (Stage Center South), that figure could increase as it is the last remaining area surrounding the MBG. If OKC can continue on the course that we are on, we could see some major redevelopers coming into the area and this would be prime development.

Maybe Continental or some other company really wants this space and that's why they had such a big push for new CC to be top priority. :)

Came here to say the same as Pete. Looking forward to what they come up with. Since there's nothing worth saving on this block, anything would be an improvement.

So the east side of MBG will also be office space. Talk about doing less with more. Let me guess, building 11 is going to be the Oil Patch Hall of Fame.

On edit - thank goodness they labeled Devon Tower so we could all get our proper bearings .

They need to tear down the entire thing along with the underground parking and redevelop it into four blocks with the streetgrid being pedestrian access only. If there is a hotel, the valet could be on one of the other sides of building. This would help promote walkability, retail access and interaction.

They are planning on covering the 4 blocks with parking garages. That should do wonders for walkability. At least now we know where the 90,000 cars per day on the new boulevard are going to park.

Some here I'm sure wouldn't mind a minimun of three parking garages on this site plus whatever else gets built.

I concur, I know it is just a general massing concept. But shoving all the residential south of the Boulevard is weird. I would not even be mad if the entire Cox block turned out to be residential towers.

It's like forcing the CBD to expand into the crucial linking area that is basically the last hope for interacting Bricktown and DD with all the new stuff. The new park, Film Row, the Arena, the Convention Center, Riverfront. Please give this area life 24/7 - not just 8-5 weekdays.

This spot can't just be corporate. If the public, which currently owns this property, is not the main focus of the most important piece of real estate in the entire state of Oklahoma, then it will be hard to convince me to maintain the amount of passion I have for this city.

The importance of how this development occurs cannot be over stated. It's *the* first thing you see coming out of the intermodal hub. It's the most visible block from the 40/35 interchange…It's the literal heart of the city, and we need to building something that any person in the world would come up to and say "This is a great city".

A Devon like complex would be just one more obstacle between the person leaving the Santa Fe station and literally anywhere else.

One more time I'll post this as a good starting point for what this block should become:



Sony Center:

http://doncrossland.com/90days/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/11-04-29.jpg
http://www.die-neue-sammlung.de/press/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/sony-center-berlin.jpg
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5295/5539247589_e16a34fee4_z.jpg
http://architecturestyle.net/sites/default/files/01_86.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Sony_Center_Berlin1.jpg



This block should be the definition of Mixed-Use (Residential, Office, Retail, Restaurant, Entertainment, Hotel, Public Space) and a place that locals and tourists alike want to visit. It should have a very clear line of sight between the Santa Fe Station and the MBG's Crystal Bridge.

Perfect spot for Continental.

They could buy the Renaissance Hotel like Devon did with the Colcord and connect the hotel, current and future buildings very easily.

You beat me to it. But that corner just south of the OPUBCO building would be excellent.

You beat me to it. But that corner just south of the OPUBCO building would be excellent.

I know they are not going there. It will be mid-rise mixed use of some sort.

I was just thinking that with all the Mystery Tower spots now pretty much spoken for, where does that leave Continental?

The Cox site would make perfect sense.


As far as parking, there are already almost 1,000 spaces at the Cox Center that serve various buildings downtown and provide parking for The Peake. So, those would have to be replaced and more would have to built to serve the new construction on that site.

I know they are not going there. It will be mid-rise mixed use of some sort.

I was just thinking that with all the Mystery Tower spots now pretty much spoken for, where does that leave Continental?

The Cox site would make perfect sense.


As far as parking, there are already almost 1,000 spaces at the Cox Center that serve various buildings downtown and provide parking for The Peake. So, those would have to be replaced and more would have to built to serve the new construction on that site.

I'm talking about the NEW OPUBCO (Century Center) location, block 9A of the study for CLR. I should have been more clear.

Completely agree with Teo9969. Also NOW is the time to start pushing for this and getting the vision established, not 5-10 years from now when some developer proposes something underwhelming. Establish the importance of this block now and the precedence that nothing less than a first class development will be acceptable there. This is OKC's opportunity to create something super special and show that it is not the same city that let Randy Hogan suburbanize the lower canal in the late '90s and early 2000s.

You know - it is almost as if no one at the City is actually planning for any mass transit to use the transit hub.

I'm talking about the NEW OPUBCO (Century Center) location, block 9A of the study for CLR. I should have been more clear.

Oh, right! Sorry, my mistake.

Teo, I agree with you that this location should be mixed use and a great gateway to downtown. But the pics you posted just look hideous to me. :)

You know - it is almost as if no one at the City is actually planning for any mass transit to use the transit hub.

There is presently zero mass transit that has been confirmed for the transit hub other than the streetcar.

What percentage of people that work downtown do you think live close enough to walk or take the streetcar to the Cox site? As much as things have built up and with all the plans on the drawing boards I'd bet that number is still just a few percent.

Even if when there is a commuter line to/from Norman, Edmond and Midwest City I doubt that number grows to much more than 5%.

I used to work in the heart of downtown Los Angeles which has a pretty incredible mass transit system (extensive subway, many commuter lines, heavily used bus system, tons of bike lanes, etc.) and the department I managed handled parking among other things. Only about half the 300 people in our office received free parking; the rest were on their own but the company would pretty much pay for mass transit. Of those 300 people, only about 10-20 used mass transit.

Cox Convention Center will not be demolished until construction is completed on the new convention center. Since the city owns the Cox Convention Center site, wouldn't it make more sense to keep this site for the future indoor sports arena when we retire the Peake?

Cox Convention Center will not be demolished until construction is completed on the new convention center. Since the city owns the Cox Convention Center site, wouldn't it make more sense to keep this site for the future indoor sports arena when we retire the Peake?

Not if they can sell the land for a lot more than it'll take to acquire it slightly outside the CBD.

Not if they can sell the land for a lot more than it'll take to acquire it slightly outside the CBD.

Plus, they just paid a consultant a lot of money to do a study and come back with recommendations on how this block and the others around the convention center should be developed.

There are plenty of places to put a new arena when that time comes and it shouldn't be in the middle of our central business district anyway.

Plus, they just paid a consultant a lot of money to do a study and come back with recommendations on how this block and the others around the convention center should be developed.

There are plenty of places to put a new arena when that time comes and it shouldn't be in the middle of our central business district anyway.

Definitely agree. They can easily keep it close enough to be convenient to all the amenities without maintaining a super block in the middle of the CBD. Hopefully the city sells the land in smaller parcels to keep one group from hampering a return to the grid.

When it's time for a new arena, the Producer's Coop might be a good possibility.

Or south of the boulevard near the new park, etc.

When it's time for a new arena, the Producer's Coop might be a good possibility.

Or south of the boulevard near the new park, etc.

Those are excellent options.

When it's time for a new arena, the Producer's Coop might be a good possibility.

Or south of the boulevard near the new park, etc.

Or the Compress Lot (Uhaul)

Or the Compress Lot (Uhaul)

If they tear down that building, I'll be pissed. Someone needs to buy it and remove the Uhaul exterior.

If they tear down that building, I'll be pissed. Someone needs to buy it and remove the Uhaul exterior.Why wouldn't they tear it down? It's surrounded by vacant lots to build on, and that's the only standing building to tear down. Instead of building on a vacant lot, it's much funner to tear down a historic building, don't you think?

If they tear down that building, I'll be pissed. Someone needs to buy it and remove the Uhaul exterior.

Most people probably aren't aware of what is under the exterior.

Why wouldn't they tear it down? It's surrounded by vacant lots to build on, and that's the only standing building to tear down. Instead of building on a vacant lot, it's much funner to tear down a historic building, don't you think?

Thankfully I read the full comment before I lost my mind... Now you're going to make me actually read your posts to see when you are seriously wanting a 44-lane highway and when you are just yanking chains. ;)

On edit - thank goodness they labeled Devon Tower so we could all get our proper bearings .

Okay, that made me laugh.

There is presently zero mass transit that has been confirmed for the transit hub other than the streetcar.

What percentage of people that work downtown do you think live close enough to walk or take the streetcar to the Cox site? As much as things have built up and with all the plans on the drawing boards I'd bet that number is still just a few percent.

Even if when there is a commuter line to/from Norman, Edmond and Midwest City I doubt that number grows to much more than 5%.

Apparently, the streetcar won' be going to the hub for awhile either. Alas, just like mass transit doesn't reduce traffic congestion, mass transit isn't going to solve parking problems either. For every person who leaves their car at home and takes the train there will be someone else in a car to take their place. The only way to solve parking issues is to stop building more parking. I know that seems counter-intuitive to some but if people know there is no place for them to park they will stop trying to do it. Of course, that takes an alternative form of transportation to be made available but I wonder if all the TIF money for structured parking was spent on mass transit instead how much further along we would be.

There is presently zero mass transit that has been confirmed for the transit hub other than the streetcar.

What percentage of people that work downtown do you think live close enough to walk or take the streetcar to the Cox site? As much as things have built up and with all the plans on the drawing boards I'd bet that number is still just a few percent.

Even if when there is a commuter line to/from Norman, Edmond and Midwest City I doubt that number grows to much more than 5%.

Apparently, the streetcar won' be going to the hub for awhile either. Alas, just like mass transit doesn't reduce traffic congestion, mass transit isn't going to solve parking problems either. For every person who leaves their car at home and takes the train there will be someone else in a car to take their place. The only way to solve parking issues is to stop building more parking. I know that seems counter-intuitive to some but if people know there is no place for them to park they will stop trying to do it. Of course, that takes an alternative form of transportation to be made available to keep the wheels of commerce turning but I wonder if all the TIF money for structured parking was spent on mass transit instead how much further along we would be.

Apparently, the streetcar won' be going to the hub for awhile either. Alas, just like mass transit doesn't reduce traffic congestion, mass transit isn't going to solve parking problems either. For every person who leaves their car at home and takes the train there will be someone else in a car to take their place. The only way to solve parking issues is to stop building more parking. I know that seems counter-intuitive to some but if people know there is no place for them to park they will stop trying to do it. Of course, that takes an alternative form of transportation to be made available to keep the wheels of commerce turning but I wonder if all the TIF money for structured parking was spent on mass transit instead how much further along we would be.

Why do we keep going over this? Yes, this would be great. Very few people would argue this. But it isn't exactly possible in OKC in 2014 (or 2015). After decades of decay/poor urban renewal/economic swings, OKC is catching up to some of its peer cities. Hopefully things will improve (and they obviously are; we're getting the street car and local governments are working on a regional rail network). According to Pete's previous posts, the lack of parking will become a major issue in the next few years (and already is). I'd rather add the garages now, let downtown grow, and continue on the momentum of what we do have. Maybe ten years from now we can draw that line in the sand and tell the garage proposals, "You shall not pass!" Until then, we need a hybrid approach.

Thankfully I read the full comment before I lost my mind... Now you're going to make me actually read your posts to see when you are seriously wanting a 44-lane highway and when you are just yanking chains. ;)lol

I really would love to see the Uhual building restored. I have never seen it in its original state.

Why do we keep going over this? Yes, this would be great. Very few people would argue this. But it isn't exactly possible in OKC in 2014 (or 2015). After decades of decay/poor urban renewal/economic swings, OKC is catching up to some of its peer cities. Hopefully things will improve (and they obviously are; we're getting the street car and local governments are working on a regional rail network). According to Pete's previous posts, the lack of parking will become a major issue in the next few years (and already is). I'd rather add the garages now, let downtown grow, and continue on the momentum of what we do have. Maybe ten years from now we can draw that line in the sand and tell the garage proposals, "You shall not pass!" Until then, we need a hybrid approach.

So at what point do we make the decision to say no more large footprint parking garages; when there is not a parking problem? There is always going to be a parking problem. No city in the history of the world has solved it. Alas, what if OKC was the first city to solve the parking problem what would then be the reason for building mass transit? In short, mass transit IS the solution to the parking problem for those people who use it. If OKC only had 1 parking space 5 people would drive downtown to try and park in it.

Did I just hear someone say that want to demo the Cox Center before we even have a proposal in place? Wow, so here we are complaining about blanket demo work, and that comes up for something that still serves a purpose.....and I still feel will continue to do so even after the CC is open.

We just lost the Barons, so we've now lost the main arena tenant. But will that still be true in another few years? Who knows.

I'm usually opposed to the reclaiming of this space for anything other than the new arena, but like most things I comment on....it all depends. If we can get REAL density out of replacing the Cox Center, great. I don't really care about the grid restoration because it's not as though it gets you anywhere....a rail line in one direction, buildings in 2 directions, and the gardens in the other. If you want more streetscape space, fine whatever. IF someone came up to me and said they were going to build the density that rendering had, I'd be all for it. But until we see the CC open and we know how it's going to operate...and how the Cox will relate to it, I'm not making any plans on the site.

I get what you are saying bombermwc but I look at it this way: abandoned bad urban design < occupied bad urban design < vacant lot < abandoned good urban design < occupied good urban design. Much like the Stage Center did, the Cox Center actually prevents adjacent development because it is such a non-inviting structure to be near. Pick any project downtown and drop it into my preference ranking and you can easily determine my stance on the project.

We not going to solve every problem to make downtown Oklahoma City a CBD utopia. You move one development with the idea to solve a problem then you create another; sadly that's how it appears to work. Just work with the big picture items as we develop a suitable downtown.

It seems like it was only yesterday I so vividly recall the opening night of the Myriad Convention Center's 'Great Arena' with Della Reese (singer) as the marquee entertainment on that eventful day. Our new arena-convention center complex was to put Oklahoma City in the mix for some prime conventions; there was only one problem, we had only one legitimate downtown hotel.

Apparently, the streetcar won' be going to the hub for awhile either. Alas, just like mass transit doesn't reduce traffic congestion, mass transit isn't going to solve parking problems either. For every person who leaves their car at home and takes the train there will be someone else in a car to take their place. The only way to solve parking issues is to stop building more parking. I know that seems counter-intuitive to some but if people know there is no place for them to park they will stop trying to do it. Of course, that takes an alternative form of transportation to be made available but I wonder if all the TIF money for structured parking was spent on mass transit instead how much further along we would be.

This practice has served Manhattan well.

This practice has served Manhattan well.

In a small city like OKC, removing downtown parking will simply drive development to the suburbs. Developers design for the infrastructure that is here, not what theoretically should be here under a certain worldview or not what may be here in 15-20 years. This isn't NYC where density and mass transit are a requirement because of limited space. Comparing OKC development practices with Manhattan, like is often done on this site, couldn't be more ridiculous. There probably couldn't be any two cities that are more different than OKC and NYC.

I promise everyone, if many of the dogmatic demands of some of the urbanists on this site were enacted in OKC, it would mean the end of the downtown renaissance. Developers wouldn't spend the money nor go through the hassle in a place like OKC to conform to some of these standards and demands.

I am all for higher standards in OKC. I think development standards here have long lagged peer cities and think things should be taken to the next level. They have to stay realistic though for OKC. This cities size, economy, and culture has to be taken into consideration. What may be good for Tokyo may not be good for OKC. Instead of looking at what cities like NYC, London, and Paris are doing, which have no comparison to OKC, look at what Memphis, Nashville, Louisville, and San Antonio are doing and try to emulate that.

Teo, I agree with you that this location should be mixed use and a great gateway to downtown. But the pics you posted just look hideous to me. :)

What exactly is hideous? The buildings, the people, the fountain, the movie theater, the restaurants?

Or did you just dismiss the entire photo because you don't like the mechanical roof which is not even a major reason why I shared those pics?

What exactly is hideous? The buildings, the people, the fountain, the movie theater, the restaurants?

Or did you just dismiss the entire photo because you don't like the mechanical roof which is not even a major reason why I shared those pics?

Teo, He's pulling your chain, he likes what you posted.

In a small city like OKC, removing downtown parking will simply drive development to the suburbs. Developers design for the infrastructure that is here, not what theoretically should be here under a certain worldview or not what may be here in 15-20 years. This isn't NYC where density and mass transit are a requirement because of limited space. Comparing OKC development practices with Manhattan, like is often done on this site, couldn't be more ridiculous. There probably couldn't be any two cities that are more different than OKC and NYC.

I promise everyone, if many of the dogmatic demands of some of the urbanists on this site were enacted in OKC, it would mean the end of the downtown renaissance. Developers wouldn't spend the money nor go through the hassle in a place like OKC to conform to some of these standards and demands.

I am all for higher standards in OKC. I think development standards here have long lagged peer cities and think things should be taken to the next level. They have to stay realistic though for OKC. This cities size, economy, and culture has to be taken into consideration. What may be good for Tokyo may not be good for OKC. Instead of looking at what cities like NYC, London, and Paris are doing, which have no comparison to OKC, look at what Memphis, Nashville, Louisville, and San Antonio are doing and try to emulate that.

+1

From the Journal Record:

Three-peat: Hosting NCAA caps strong year for OKC convention business

By: Brian Brus The Journal Record December 23, 2014

OKLAHOMA CITY – Oklahoma City gained rare sports bragging rights in 2014, with three consecutive NCAA championships, Mike Carrier said.

“It’s definitely worth bragging about that. By hosting volleyball, wrestling and softball, we became the first city in NCAA history to have three Division I championships in a single calendar year,” the president of the Oklahoma City Convention and Visitors Bureau said.

“There’s no such thing as an uninteresting year for us,” he said. “Our hotel occupancy citywide was solid, and downtown life has been very active. And from what we’re hearing from our downtown partners, 2015 has all the potential to be even better.”

Carrier is still sorting through attendance numbers and economic impacts as he prepares the agency’s end-of-the-year report, and he was reluctant to provide incomplete totals. However, he confirmed that the city’s tourism was up overall, and more event organizers are inquiring about available space and prices.

“One event in particular will be a really nice win for us, and we should be ready to announce that in just a few weeks in early January,” he said. “It’s a few thousand people planning to come here in July 2016, a very nice piece of business that we would be able to take from a city we don’t normally compete with.”

In August, the United Pentecostal Church will hold its international youth congress in Oklahoma City, an event of about 20,000 people.

“Obviously with a youth, religious organization, you’re talking about well-behaved kids having a great time in Oklahoma City, and we can expect many adult chaperones and family members coming along as well,” he said.

He cited the Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association conference and trade show, which attracted about 7,500 delegates and vendors nationwide in August, as another example of the city’s successes in 2014. That show used all available space at the Cox Center downtown.

In September, the city hosted the National Rural Water Association, with about 1,500 primary attendees. That organization has agreed to come back again in 2015. And the Red Earth Festival organizers have signed a five-year contract to keep the event downtown. The festival usually attracts about 25,000 people, many of whom travel from out of state.

Carrier said the agency over the last few years has been planting seeds for discussion about a new convention center scheduled to be built in downtown under the MAPS 3 temporary sales tax. Now that the City Council has agreed to the overall design for the 550,000-square-foot, $286 million project, potential clients are trying to get calendar dates for long-term scheduling. Carrier was unable to name those organizations while negotiations are underway.

“We have groups that are ready to finalize decisions, and we’ll probably be signing contracts for future business at the same time we break ground,” he said, referring to an estimated start in early 2016 and a completion in 2018.

Playoff banners going up. They look nicer this year than in years past, maybe since missing last season - they had more money to drop.

I have heard plans that this will be demolished and a traditional block structure will be replacing it. Is this set in stone? Or are they still trying to figure out uses for this once the new convention center gets built?

I have heard plans that this will be demolished and a traditional block structure will be replacing it. Is this set in stone? Or are they still trying to figure out uses for this once the new convention center gets built?

The city paid for consultants to look at the highest and best use for the Cox Center site once the new convention center opened.

They recommended restoring the street grid and mid- to high-rise office buildings to help the CBD expand to the south.

It was just a study but at some point this is the likely course of action, where the city would ultimately put out RFP's for redevelopment.

Did they only present the highest and best use for the center? Are the other options available to the public to view?

Did they only present the highest and best use for the center? Are the other options available to the public to view?

Here is an article I wrote about it:

http://www.okctalk.com/content.php?r=45-Consultants-recommend-demolishing-Cox-Center-adding-office-towers

The Cox Center is one of the most important pieces of real estate for downtown going forward.

Personally, I would love to see a fully pedestrian oriented, mixed-use development there. Include residential, offices, restaurants, and big name retail all in one location. Restore the streets but close them off to non-essential auto traffic.

Something like the Epicentre in Charlotte is kind of the idea, but it could be a little more organic than the Epicentre is. Instead of a single residential tower like the Epicentre has, have 3-4 floors of housing above the 2-3 floors retail. Street interaction and urban density is key here, not height.

Here is an image of the Epicentre. Keep in mind, I am not wishing for EXACTLY this, but this concept. It would be cool to have a unique, local spin on whatever is done here.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/19/2c/a8/192ca8d650ab184ab13c2f8d3da74486.jpg

Does anybody think that kind of development would be doable in OKC?

I definitely hope that whatever goes in to that space restores the street grid. And while I agree that the business district is in desperate need of more retail, I would be a little concerned about what something like you have posted above would do to Bricktown, Midtown and Auto Alley. There's only so many nodes of that that downtown can support. I would hate to create a new subsidized (bc of course it will be subsidized) area that only succeeds in moving people around. I don't know the answer - but true mixed use, office/residential with street level retail and actual streets would probably be my preference to some kind of new mass-produced entertainment district.

What I would love to see here is a top-of-the-line aquarium. This would be a tourist attraction to anyone visiting the area. I'm not talking on the scale of Jenks. More along the lines of New England Aquarium or Georgia Aquarium. High hopes for sure, but the benefits would be high as well.

I don't know the answer - but true mixed use, office/residential with street level retail and actual streets would probably be my preference to some kind of new mass-produced entertainment district. i don't know either, but this is what i would hope for!

I personally think it needs to be one of two things (maybe a combo of both).

A dense cluster of multi-use blocks, street grid restored. Dense housing, retail and office space space to help fill in the CBD and promote growth within the core.

And/or something entertainment related ala the Fremont Experience in Vegas. I prefer the former, but I think they could make both ideas happen on such a large site. Use the Northhalf of the site for multi-use buildings/towers, and the South half for entertainment.

Madrid has started implementing something they call "superblocks," where squares of 9 blocks are permanently closed to through traffic and the roads within prioritize pedestrian and cycling traffic.

http://www.businessinsider.com/barcelona-plans-super-blocks-to-fight-traffic-and-pollution-2016-6
http://thecityfix.com/blog/super-blocks-barcelona-sergio-trentini/
http://thecityfix.com/blog/the-super-blocks-of-barcelona-despite-protests-city-follows-with-sustainable-strategy-sergio-trentini/

The Cox Center site would be smaller, of course – only a third the total road length*– but that wouldn't stop it from potentially being a good fit. It might be easier to sell the idea of pedestrian priority than a pedestrian-only area, and it would come with a lot of the same benefits. I would think it would encourage more high-quality urban development and involve less risk of the vision for the area not being realized. A pedestrian plaza style development would probably need to largely be done as a single project for it to work, which means waiting around for someone with the resources and will to do such an enormous development without compromising on the standards and vision of making a great pedestrian-oriented area. With a "superblock," the city could build the streets, set the rules, and evaluate proposals for smaller developments case-by-case. Fewer developers would probably be interested, given the limitations on use of the internal streets, but by the same token I would think a higher proportion of those interested would be on board with the pedestrian-first idea.

It's a big chunk of the city to entrust to a small number of people doing really big developments. I'd prefer to see it divided up into many more reasonably-sized parcels and have it open to a greater number of developers than just those with the resources to do something really big. Maybe none of what I'm saying is how things would actually work, but it makes sense in my mind, which is admittedly ignorant of how complex development opportunities like this might play out.

Madrid has started implementing something they call "superblocks," where squares of 9 blocks are permanently closed to through traffic and the roads within prioritize pedestrian and cycling traffic.

http://www.businessinsider.com/barcelona-plans-super-blocks-to-fight-traffic-and-pollution-2016-6
http://thecityfix.com/blog/super-blocks-barcelona-sergio-trentini/
http://thecityfix.com/blog/the-super-blocks-of-barcelona-despite-protests-city-follows-with-sustainable-strategy-sergio-trentini/

The Cox Center site would be smaller, of course – only a third the total road length*– but that wouldn't stop it from potentially being a good fit. It might be easier to sell the idea of pedestrian priority than a pedestrian-only area, and it would come with a lot of the same benefits. I would think it would encourage more high-quality urban development and involve less risk of the vision for the area not being realized. A pedestrian plaza style development would probably need to largely be done as a single project for it to work, which means waiting around for someone with the resources and will to do such an enormous development without compromising on the standards and vision of making a great pedestrian-oriented area. With a "superblock," the city could build the streets, set the rules, and evaluate proposals for smaller developments case-by-case. Fewer developers would probably be interested, given the limitations on use of the internal streets, but by the same token I would think a higher proportion of those interested would be on board with the pedestrian-first idea.

It's a big chunk of the city to entrust to a small number of people doing really big developments. I'd prefer to see it divided up into many more reasonably-sized parcels and have it open to a greater number of developers than just those with the resources to do something really big. Maybe none of what I'm saying is how things would actually work, but it makes sense in my mind, which is admittedly ignorant of how complex development opportunities like this might play out.

Im all for making this area as pedestrian focussed as possible. Especially with it's proximity to the Arena, Train station, Myriad Gardens, and Broadway/cbd. However, I would be strongly against a single entity developing the whole block like you mentioned. I agree that splitting it up would be be preferable.

Id rather see a larger quantity of buildings with many storefronts than three or four tall skyscrapers. This area could really be successful in a way OKC hasn't seen in decades if it's done in a way that's scaled to people - it's in a perfect location. Building 4 499 sheridans wouldn't be the ideal way to accomplish that level of success.